About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
against the obama administration on the key argument in the case, which was uzbek commerce clause of article one of congress to pass the individual mandate. which says individuals have to get health insurance. and as i sat in court on june 28 and heard chief justice roberts announce his decision in the case, i learned the edge to the question, which was no, it doesn't. the commerce clause does not allow the court, the congress to invoke an individual mandate. but then any decision that stunned many people, but no one more than me, john roberts reached for a subsidiary argument that had only been upended, had only been mentioned in passing in both the supreme court and even the lower courts and he said the individual mandate was a permissible use of taxing power of congress and not the commerce clause, and thus the law would be upheld. subquestion finally anticipate why, why did roberts do that? and i think there were three main reasons. one is, i think you have to take his opinion at face value. eastham thought it was a legitimate use of the taxing power. i think the second and th
be the point that the obama administration defends the defense of marriage act and president romney will defend the constitutionality, but it doesn't seem that social conservative question has a lot of allotted salience in some unlike a presidential debate. so i think other than health care i see much happening. >> i think it will not happen. and here is why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. it is kind of remarkable. the republicans during the 90s for a while were seen some political profit in attacking affirmative action given the polls. don't do it anymore and the democrats, john kerry and the early 90s, joe lieberman in the early 90s and others said maybe it is time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic leadership council was inching down that road. but that is all gone. i've spoken to republican politicians, why is that? the answer is we get so if we ever raise their voices against affirmative action it is just not worth the cost, not worth the hassle. part of it ironically was an incredibly bitter campaign in calif
obama recently declined to defend and the administration is enforcing it. the house has created the bipartisan legal advisory group. and the fans these laws since the administration abdicated its role in defending them and paul clement in that task. there are several cases all of which have petitions to decide. the first one and probably the front runner is a combination case, personnel management and the department of health and human services. it came out of massachusetts. two cases have been combined and they argue the equal protection clause violates section 3 of the defense of marriage act because the defense of marriage act violates the equal protection clause because there is no rational basis for this or it doesn't pass strict scrutiny. the idea of which level of scrutiny must pass has been questioned so we're happy to argue both. elena kagan was involved at the district court level during confirmation hearings that came out and questions her office had been involved in doing internal discussions of strategies in the case so she would be recused from that case and that p
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3